Something still bothers me about this (other than contradictory interpretations of the law having decided two elections in different ways).
In the Maricopa case there is a strong argument that a tie is the just outcome. After all without the second preference of someone who already preferred Carlüs it would be a tie which includes Carlüs.
But that is not true in the Florencia case. Any two-way matchup between Acafat and any of the other candidates would have resulted in Acafat winning. So Id argue Acafat winning was also a just outcome. But this proposal (or the new consensus interpretation of the current law) would result in a tie.
Looking at previous rounds wouldnt catch it, because there were no previous rounds to look at.
The multiple scenarios clause only catches part of it. When all remaining candidates are tied and theres more than two candidates you're always gonna have a tie because you always have at least one scenario where each candidate is eliminated.
This is why Mximo stays in the race even though 2 out of 3 voters with a preference preferred Acafat.
That doesn't feel correct to me.
In the Maricopa case there is a strong argument that a tie is the just outcome. After all without the second preference of someone who already preferred Carlüs it would be a tie which includes Carlüs.
But that is not true in the Florencia case. Any two-way matchup between Acafat and any of the other candidates would have resulted in Acafat winning. So Id argue Acafat winning was also a just outcome. But this proposal (or the new consensus interpretation of the current law) would result in a tie.
Looking at previous rounds wouldnt catch it, because there were no previous rounds to look at.
The multiple scenarios clause only catches part of it. When all remaining candidates are tied and theres more than two candidates you're always gonna have a tie because you always have at least one scenario where each candidate is eliminated.
This is why Mximo stays in the race even though 2 out of 3 voters with a preference preferred Acafat.
That doesn't feel correct to me.